THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 19, 1997 TAG: 9701180031
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Another View
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: By THEODORE R. WOLF
LENGTH: 67 lines
I have owned a half-dozen dogs over the years. As each one started to suffer at the end of its life, I took it to a vet for ``assisted death.'' I loved each dog so much that I could not bear to see it suffer needlessly. It is hard for me to understand why a person should not be treated as humanely as a dog.
There are countless ways in which death overtakes us. Some are fortunate enough to go to sleep in a bed and not wake up. Some are subjected to months or years of suffering. Some end their misery with a .32 revolver.
But thousands of human beings are unable to end their suffering because they are physically unable even to obtain or swallow enough pills (which may not work anyway). These are the people who might welcome the assistance of a physician.
There are degrees of intervention. ``Passive'' intervention might consist of turning off a respirator or removing a feeding tube - permissible today. My wife and I both have ``living wills'' to prevent doctors or hospitals from using any such heroic measures.
There are also degrees of ``active'' intervention. For the terminally ill it is not a matter of granting life or death. They are going to die soon anyway. It is whether someone dies a bit sooner or a bit later; whether his suffering is shortened or prolonged.
If an illness is not terminal, should assisted suicide be permitted? Yes! The feared ``slippery slope'' should be slippery enough to include those who are in some ways worse off than the terminally ill. Instead of days or weeks of suffering to endure, some of them might have years of intolerable existence to look forward to.
Intolerance varies with the individual. What might be intolerable to one person might be only a damn nuisance to another. The remarkable Christopher Reeve is at the top of the scale. At least he can talk.
Last night I was unable to sleep. For an hour. Two hours. Would the night never end? I turned on the light and read. Suppose I were paralyzed from the neck down and unable to speak, as is an elderly relative of mine. The highlight of each day would be when someone spoon fed me or read to me; the lowlight when someone changed my diaper. Not a terminal illness. Unbearable boredom not by the hour but by the week, month, year. Some people might be content just to be ``alive.'' But end my mental agony. Don't just stop the feeding and subject me to the pangs of starvation. Have a doctor bring me blessed relief, in 15 seconds, with an injection. Please!
Safeguards? Can a program of doctor-assisted suicide be abused? Any program can be abused. The present system (or lack of system) is probably abused. But I would rather err on the side of the suffering patient than that of the politician or lawyer. Or course, no one should be assisted in suicide unless he or she desperately wants to die. For whatever reason. And as one doctor friend told me, no physician should assist in a suicide unless he is convinced that it would be in the best interest of the patient. ``Do no harm''? Sometimes a doctor can do more harm by withholding aid than by giving it.
The religions of some people tell them that only God should end a life. They should be allowed to suffer as long as God wants them to. But their religious beliefs should not control what others do.
The public is frequently more understanding than their government. Dr. Kevorkian has openly assisted in numerous suicides, but no prosecutor has been able to convince a jury of his peers to convict him.
It is the height of arrogance for healthy politicians to tell others that they must continue to exist no matter how fervently they wish to die now rather than later. MEMO: Theodore Wolf, 89, is a retired consultant and lecturer, living in
Virginia Beach. He still plays tennis.